DOJ’s Latest FCPA Resolution Emphasizes Mexican Cartel Connections

The Trump Administration has made Latin American cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) a key enforcement priority. Since February 2025, the Department of State has designated numerous Latin American cartels, gangs, and other criminal organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), including two additional Mexican cartels designated earlier this month. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has emphasized that it will use all available enforcement tools – including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) – to investigate and prosecute these newly-designated FTOs and the companies and individuals that engage in conduct that benefits or supports them.  (Please find a post analyzing DOJ’s FCPA enforcement priorities here.)

On July 17, 2026, DOJ announced an FCPA resolution with the Scoular Company (Scoular), pursuant to which the Nebraska-based agricultural company agreed to pay over $10 million and enter into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) to resolve allegations that it engaged in a six-year bribery scheme that not only benefitted Mexican customs officials, but also individuals with ties to Mexican cartels. The Scoular resolution provides the latest and clearest illustration of how DOJ’s FCPA enforcement priorities increasingly intersect with the Trump Administration’s broader national security and anti-cartel objectives.

The Scoular Resolution

Scoular is an Omaha-based agricultural supply chain company with operations spanning the United States and Mexico. According to DOJ, from 2013 to 2019, Scoular utilized third-party customs brokers to facilitate the payment of bribes to Mexican customs officials to avoid crop inspection requirements and ensure continued movement of shipments across the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Scoular resolution is notable because it focuses on a sustained pattern of relatively modest but repeated bribe payments over several years. The bribes, which were approximately $2,000 per train shipment, ultimately amounted to more than $400,000. By making these payments through third-party customs brokers, DOJ determined that Scoular avoided fees and costs of more than $6.5 million.

To resolve the allegations, Scoular agreed to pay approximately $9.7 million in criminal penalties and $414,000 in forfeiture. Scoular did not receive credit under DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) because it failed to voluntarily and timely disclose the alleged misconduct. (Please see our previous coverage of the CEP here.)

Mexican Cartel Connections

The Scoular resolution is also notable because of DOJ’s emphasis on Mexican cartel-related risks. Amid increasing attention to and prosecutions of high-ranking Mexican officials with purported links to cartels (which we recently covered in a separate post), DOJ has signaled its intention to “make an example” of companies with links to cartels in Latin America.

In announcing the Scoular resolution, Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva emphasized that a “portion of those bribes ultimately benefited people who helped operate a cartel, even though Scoular did not know about it.” U.S. Attorney Justin Simmons continued: “American businesses that engage in any cross-border trade bear a significant amount of responsibility to do so without benefitting those cartels and without threatening our national security.” 

The emphasis on cartel connections echoes DOJ’s November 2025 DPA with Millicom (the owner of TIGO Guatemala) where Millicom paid more than $118 million to resolve FCPA allegations related to bribery in Guatemala. In that resolution, DOJ similarly noted that certain funds used to pay bribes were allegedly the laundered proceeds of narcotrafficking. 

Taken together, the Scoular and Millicom resolutions suggest that DOJ increasingly views certain corruption risks through a broader national security lens, particularly where misconduct may intersect with organized crime, narcotics trafficking, or designated FTOs.

The Scoular resolution demonstrates that DOJ will continue to prioritize FCPA enforcement actions when there are possible cartel connections, even if a company is not aware of those connections. At the same time, the resolution does not suggest that DOJ dispensed with traditional FCPA elements or scienter requirements; rather, the alleged bribery scheme itself remained central to the enforcement action.

It also signals heightened enforcement risk for companies operating in jurisdictions where cartels, TCOs, and FTOs may exert influence over public officials, customs processes, transportation networks, security arrangements, or other aspects of commercial activity. Companies operating in these environments may face increased scrutiny of third-party relationships and controls designed to detect potential corruption or criminal influence.

Key Takeaways and Considerations

Rather than retreating from FCPA enforcement, DOJ appears to be recalibrating its enforcement priorities to align with the broader national security, border security, and anti-cartel objectives articulated by the Trump Administration. 

The Scoular resolution provides an early illustration of how those priorities may shape future FCPA investigations and charging decisions. It also underscores the importance of viewing anti-corruption controls as part of a broader enterprise risk management framework that encompasses sanctions, national security, supply chain integrity, and organized crime risks. 

For companies, the Scoular resolution serves as a reminder that FCPA compliance remains a critical consideration, particularly where business operations intersect with regions or sectors presenting elevated cartel, TCO, or FTO risk. Multinational companies operating in areas with cartel risk should consider a number of proactive mitigation measures, depending on their existing compliance framework and controls, including: 

• Strengthening third-party due diligence and enhancing oversight of third parties: DOJ has outlined a number of common “red flags” when interacting with third parties in its FCPA Resource Guide (pp. 22-23). Companies may consider subjecting customs brokers, logistics providers, and other intermediaries who interact with foreign officials to heightened scrutiny through enhanced due diligence. Measures could include, for example, targeted questionnaires, transaction testing, sanctions screenings, beneficial ownership reviews, and periodic risk-based monitoring that leverage public and on-the-ground intelligence. Such diligence may assist companies in identifying potential connections to criminal organizations, sanctioned actors, or politically exposed persons before risks materialize.
• Tightening financial controls and contract terms: Companies may wish to refresh invoicing practices and payment controls, incorporate audit or inspection rights into agreements with third parties, and build anti-corruption provisions into third-party contracts to help surface potential concerns, remediate emerging risks, and terminate risky relationships as appropriate. Companies may also consider implementing controls designed to verify the legitimacy of customs-related charges, inspections, and certifications in higher-risk jurisdictions.
• Building robust reporting and escalation channels: Companies may consider ways to train employees on recognizing corruption and organized crime related concerns, create and maintain effective channels to report potential or suspected misconduct, and promote a strong “speak-up” culture, accompanied by greater oversight from compliance functions and reinforced by a robust “tone-from-the-top” regarding FTO- and corruption-related risks. Companies may also consider adapting escalation protocols to provide clear pathways for reporting and reviewing potential concerns by legal, compliance, and, where appropriate, corporate security personnel.
• Integrating anti-corruption, sanctions, and national security compliance efforts: As DOJ increasingly emphasizes the connection between bribery, organized crime, sanctions, and national security risks, companies may benefit from closer coordination among legal, compliance, sanctions, corporate security, and investigative functions. Risk assessments that evaluate these issues holistically may be better positioned to identify overlapping areas of exposure and respond to emerging threats.
• Continuously tracking FTO designations and sanctions developments: Companies should also stay up to date on the evolving FTO designation landscape and assess whether payments, services, logistics arrangements, security relationships, or other commercial interactions could directly or indirectly benefit such entities. This includes continuously monitoring the Office of Foreign Asset Control’s (OFAC) sanctions targeting cartel-linked individuals and entities. For example, on July 23, OFAC issued another round of Mexico-focused sanctions targeting over 50 individuals and entities linked to Jalisco New Generation, a cartel that is already a designated FTO.

* * *

This blog post is part of an ongoing series exploring the legal, commercial, and strategic complexities of operating in conflict zones and high-risk jurisdictions. Contributors to this series include Freshfields attorneys Piusha Bose, Eric Bruce, Daniel Cendan, Kate Cooper, Tim Harkness, Melissa Hodgman, Tim Howard, Joshua Kelly, Sylvia Noury, Alexandra van der Meulen, Paige von Meheren, Carsten Wendler, Nabeel Yousef, Kim Zelnick, Matthew Haggans, Peter Linken, Justin Simeone, Maria Slobodchikova, Andrew Bulovsky, Allison Kowalski, Ian Allen, Sasha Aristotle, Omeed Askary, Grace Bruce, Heather Cameron, Elischke de Villiers, Karen Laska, Ian Maurer, Jordan McGuffee, Jackson Myers, Paloma Palmer, Keian Razipour, Miguel Serrano, and Sabrina Zhang. Stay tuned for upcoming posts, and please reach out with topics, questions, or experiences you would like us to cover as part of this ongoing conversation.

For a collection of related previous posts and webinars, please click this link.

The authors are grateful for Summer Law Clerk Benjamin Kane’s contributions to this article. 

To receive the latest insights on US legal developments, subscribe to the Freshfields A Fresh Take Blog.